The editorial in today’s Baylor Lariat student newspaper mentions that university faculty positions are “notoriously shaky” jobs. I actually LOLed when I read that. The context of the article had to do with a few dozen faculty contracts at UNT Dallas that were not renewed when the university gained independent status recently.

I have not researched the UNT Dallas situation, but I would hazard a guess that the contracts in question were lecturer or tenure-track (but not full tenure) positions. If the layoffs were tenured faculty, then that would be very odd, from what I’ve seen in academia over the years.

To say that faculty positions are unstable is laughable, seeing as it is nearly impossible to fire a tenured faculty member. Becoming tenured is akin to becoming a top exec with a golden parachute: you’re in for life, for all intents and purposes.

I’ve decided to apply to graduate school to pursue my doctorate degree. It wasn’t something I decided to do on a whim; rather, I’ve been considering it for quite some time. At first, I only told a few people, but now that the application is well underway, I figured there was no sense keeping it a secret. Most of the response has been encouraging, if not astonished. Some have questioned my sanity, taking on such an endeavor at this stage of my life.

I suppose it does sound a little crazy, taking into account everything that is on my plate these days. Honestly, though, I thrive on having something productive to do with my mind. It’s why I write. I got out of the tv habit a few years ago, and while I still enjoy some shows, I catch up on most things after-the-fact on Netflix nowadays.

Some people think I’m out of my mind for going back to school while Lane is away and I have solo responsibility for the boys, but Lane was also deployed &/or on active duty – living hours away in another city on weekdays – during many months of my master’s degree work. Studying is my equivalent of tv time, I guess you could say. Yes, I’m a geek, but I truly do enjoy learning. I like having something that I need to focus on in the evenings; it keeps me from fretting and letting my imagination wander into what-ifs that I don’t need to be imagining.

Besides all that, I’m excited about what possibilities lie ahead once I finish my doctorate. I’m not necessarily thinking of a career shift, but I could teach, if I wanted to, or be eligible for advancement into other administrative/executive positions at the university.

It’s never going to be easier, quite frankly. If I wait until the kids are older, then they won’t be going to bed at 8 or 9pm, and my evenings won’t be as quiet as they are now (it seems funny to say that my evenings are quiet … it’s really just a few hours between their bedtime and my own, but it is still a much-appreciated time of solitude!).

Anyway, I don’t think I’m crazy. I think I’m ambitious, sure, but I also think that I know my limits, and there’s no rush to finish the degree at break-neck speed. If I can only handle one class at a time, so be it. I’ll gladly take the tortoise’s route instead of the hare’s. The end justifies the means, does it not?

This article is timely, as it comes on the heels of two encouraging conversations I had today about life, goals and convictions.

Sometimes I wonder if “work/life balance” isn’t a misnomer, b/c being a mother, boss and employee are not separate & distinct parts of my life. They influence each other in [what I hope is, at least] a positive manner and contribute to who I am as an individual.

I am a professional who happens to have five kids. Neither has to suffer for the other to succeed. I don’t think of myself as a wave-maker, but perhaps I am a mold-breaker, and you know what? I think that’s ok.

 

I can’t claim credit for writing this, but I think it’s very eye-opening.

Bar Stool Economics:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

If you can get past the statistical formulas, there is an interesting article in the May 2008 issue of American Political Science Review on whistleblowing (Michael M. Ting, p.249). The study considers the effectiveness of whistleblowing and evaluates strategies based on managerial models.

The article also reviews the personal costs & benefits of whistleblowing and historical protections of such. Pertinent cases include the Civil Service Reform Act (1978), the Whistleblower Protection Act (1989) and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (1992).

We have been talking in class about obscenity — how to define it, how to monitor it, how to regulate it, etc. I came across an article about students in Europe having to share tiny apartments, and a French student group satirized the situation with an edgy poster campaign.

The article in reference is from the May 23, 2008 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, beginning on p. A1. Could you imagine such a poster being displayed on campus here?! Not in 1,000,000 years.

The following link is the source of the original poster. Disclaimer: The image might be considered obscene!

http://unef.fr/delia-CMS/index/article_id-2282/topic_id-216,,/construction-de-logements-pour-les-etudiants.html

I went shopping at the bookstore this past weekend and found a lovely book of paintings by Mary Cassatt. She’s one of my favorite artists; her portraits of mothers and children are so tender.

As I was thumbing through the book, one picture caught my eye and made me think abt my last discussion paper on obscenity. The portrait is a beautiful depiction of a mother nursing her infant. The breast is not even fully visible, and it is certainly not painted in a way that a rational person would find sexual.

However, Mary Cassatt was born in 1844, so many of her paintings were crafted in an era when controversies leading up to the Comstock Act were at fever pitch. It occurred to me that this particular painting would likely have been confiscated by the postal service and destroyed as obscene material. How sad.

It is pretty commonplace for high-demand speakers to receive an honorarium, accept payment for expenses or require a fee for speeches. However, The Washington Post requires its employees to screen speaking engagements with the editors before accepting fees. David Broder and Bob Woodward recently came under scrutiny for accepting such fees.

In Broder’s case, it seems that he actually did have a personal benefit from the speaking engagements (especially where free trips, etc. were concerned), and there is a reasonable argument for conflict of interest.

In Woodward’s case, however, the money he received for speaking went into a family foundation for charitable purposes. While it would have been better for him to run the speaking invitations by the editors to be on the safe side, at least he was not receiving funds for his personal use.

Both Broder and Woodward have retired from full-time employment with the Post but are still on the roster as contractual writers. As such, they should have followed the policy of letting the editors know when they had speaking-for-payment opportunities.

Howell, Deborah. “When Speech Isn’t Free.” The Washington Post. June 22, 2008. B06